Forum Topic

Re council tax reductions: this is a classic example of bribing the electorate. Only one quarter of the Council's revenue comes from council tax and about 3/4 comes from central Government. Stephen Greenhalgh judged that the electorate would not look beyond the headline "3% reduction". He was right and he's at it again for next year!As a result of having less money he has attacked the weakest in our community by cutting the services which only they use. He has even attacked organisations which do not take a subsidy from the Council, like the Hammersmith Community Trust. This is pure vindictiveness.There is only one redevelopment scheme which commands the support of both Labour and Conservative councillors and that is the Old Oak scheme which is genuinely a wasteland of old railway sidings and abandoned industrial buildings. The other "opportunity areas" are only opportunities for developers to get their teeth into some juicy profits from "luxury investment properties", the second-tier of the Candy brothers' market. Mr Greenhalgh's aim is to increase the number of properties in the hands of absentee or buy-to-let owners who require no services. This is about wholesale change to the population of Hammersmith (but not Fulham), aka gerrymandering.The residents of White City live in dread of being forced out of their council flats into smaller and inferior new ones. And the adjacent conservation areas are rightly protesting that their streets will be blighted by giant skyscrapers. No one likes them, remember?!

Una Hodgkins ● 4851d